5 year old given rifle as gift, kills 2 year old sister

So the US still didn't have an answer to the Soviet AK-47. Eventually an inventor came up with a very light weight .22 caliber rifle firing a modified .222 cartridge (normally used for hunting rabbits and foxes). The gun was small and light so the Air Force adopted it as a gun their aircrews could use if they bailed out. It was fancy, looked high-tech, and used lots of aluminum, the Air Force's favorite metal, so they bought lots of them. Someone showed it to President Kennedy and he thought it was nifty. The US Army despised it. They worked for Kennedy, and he told them to adopt it, so they did, after trying everything in their power to keep using a real combat rifle.

Click to expand...

Two different guns there. The Armalite AR-5 was the aircrew survival weapon, a lightweight, collapsible bolt-action in .22 Hornet. The first M16 was the Armalte AR-15, by that time owned by Colt, approved by Curtis LeMay for USAF base security forces.

And we're not supposed to at least minimally, sensibly regulate them and who can legally get their hands on and operate them? This isn't a Second Amendment issue and it never has been. It's a common sense safety issue dealing with devices specifically designed to smash, destroy and kill things and with rapid, lethal efficiency.

Click to expand...

And we already do all that, with hundreds of pages of regulations that have to be complied with, along with the maintenance of a federal database of prohibited persons (which anti-gun states often don't seem to bother updating). In case you've not noticed, pro-gun people really, really don't like criminals, much less armed ones. But every time the anti-gun crowd gets fired up, they try to pretend that we don't have any regulations yet. Even politicians do this, often making themselves look insanely stupid.

The new regulations are always claimed to be "sensible" no matter how daft they are, or how onerous they might be. Heck, we're already past the point where very few liberals can buy a firearm without violating federal law, because almost all of them have used illegal drugs at one time or another, and like most crappy legislation written in a crisis to appease emotional needs, the wording is vague.

Among the recent bill's proposed amendments were ones that would've prohibited people who'd ever taken anti-anxiety medications or anti-depressants, along with intrusive medical record checks, which would probably have permanently barred gun ownership to any woman who'd ever had a baby, a miscarriage, or a worthless boyfriend. Apparently that qualifies as "sensible" in some circles.

Another proposal was to ban the private transfer of guns, defining transfer so badly that going on a one week business trip while leaving your gun in the same house as your spouse could get you both a five year stay in federal prison. Barrack Obama and his entire security detail would probably go to jail for the first Hawaiian vacation they took after Barrack signed the bill, because they probably don't take all their guns with them on every trip. That also was claimed to be "sensible."

There are limits to how effective any such system of regulations can be because criminals don't obey the law. If they did, our streets wouldn't be flooded with illegal drugs, often smuggled in from foreign countries. There are limits to how effective mental health screening can be because many of the violent episodes occur before any big warning flags manifest.

Now, why should things that cause fewer deaths than swimming pools or hammers be the focus of so much attention? Is it a desperate attempt at distraction? Is it some sort of tribal thing? Going after assault rifles would have the least productive effect on dropping homicide rates of just about anything that could be done, so why was so much time and effort and political capital wasted on it? Why was virtually nothing suggested toward things that might reduce the homicide rate, or at least specifically try to reduce the number of mass murders in public areas like schools?

We know who's committing most of the homicides, and just about all of them (and in many cities about 80% of their victims) have a long chain of prior arrests. Heck, in some cities would cut the homicide rate in half just by keeping the obvious victims-to-be in jail so they don't get murdered on the streets. Perhaps that wouldn't be "sensible" but it would be highly effective.

Most homicides involve alcohol or drugs, so there's another area where we're not focusing. (It might be really interesting to compare a graph of US alcohol consumption, or some good metric for alcohol abuse, with the decline in the homicide rate, while making an allowance for the explosion in crack murders in the 1980's.) And those aren't just gun homicides, they're also knife and hammer homicides.

The increase in school killings seems to be driven by a copycat effect, so decreasing the amount of press coverage, or at least somehow the press coverage kids are seeing, should help. For example, the Newtown shooter was obsessed with the coverage of the previous school shooters. "Obsessed" as in newspaper clippings covering his wall, with circled parts and everything, just like in TV detective shows. So what did we do? We had PBS broadcast a two-partFrontline biography of the shooter! You can bet that a half-dozen school-shooters-to-be were glued to their televisions, watching it in fascination as light bulbs went off in their heads.

Despite the ratings and public interest, the media should probably stop doing so much of that. If some future psycho kid realizes that guns are really a poor choice for inflicting mass casualties in a concentrated area, and instead uses a homemade flamethrower (which are oddly legal and useful for clearing brush), the media should just shut up and lie their little asses off because there's no way on Earth to stop any kid from making a homemade flamethrower, so let's pray they never start, and that the hobby remains just a harmless but awesome Youtube genre.

BTW, one of the largest public mass killings (32 dead), and the largest killing of LGBT people in US history, was done with nothing but a single bottle of Ronsonol lighter fluid. UpStairs Lounge attack

All rifles combined, not just assault rifles, are virtually irrelevant in homicide statistics, and many of those used are by drug cartels (sometimes armed by the branch of the federal government charged with enforcing gun laws). More people are murdered with clubs and hammers than rifles, and about twice as many are killed with bare hands. About four times as many are murdered with sharp pointing things, and five times as many are killed with "other weapons" (probably frozen turkeys). More people are also murdered with shotguns than all rifle types combined.

Click to expand...

There are thousands of children killed every year at the hands of adults. It is VERY unfortunate and there's little we can do to stop it. Often the warning signs are not there until the crime is ultimately committed.

So yes, there are more homicides committed by other means. But it's not about the overall quantity of deaths that the ban concerns. It's about the number of deaths in a single incident. Most homicides involve people who know each other. But when a death is caused at random, no "personal cause" at hand, it angers people the most. These assault weapons make it very easy to just kill a bunch of people all at once. It empowers the killer to murder many at will. THIS is what the ban is all about. Because if we don't do anything to stop it, the fear (and right so), is that more people will seek to do the same thing. Troubled, desperate people who see this as an effective means to vent their anger.

And what harm would there be in a background check? esp. as most Americans support backgrounds.

And of course just because a member of the electorae votes a certain way doesn't mean they support all the policies of the party/person they voted for.

Click to expand...

Again, we already have background checks. They are usually quite thorough, to the point where tens of thousands of people have to go through extra scrutiny just because their names just happen to match other people, even though their drivers license and Social Security numbers are different.

You comment is yet another example of pretending we don't already have regulations so you can argue that we should have at least some regulations. Nobody on the pro-gun side is buying it, because we're the people who have to deal with all the regulations that do, in fact, already exist.

What would you think if half the nation ran around claiming that airline pilots should at least have to be tested for flying skills, and then writing bills that had nothing to do with flying ability, hoping the "pilots should have to be tested" line would convince enough semi-retarded idiots to support whatever was in the unseen bills?

Of all the previous spree shooters, the Aurora shooter was ignored by psychologists, even as he sent a letter saying what he was going to do. The Tuscon shooter was a walking signboard for paranoid schizophrenia, but he too was ignored and would've passed any background check we could devise. The Virginia Tech shooter passed the background checks because Virginia wasn't updating mental health exceptions in the interests of violent crazy people, or some such, and the Newtown shooter didn't need to pass any background checks because he didn't buy a single gun that he used.

After Newtown, Obama came out with a big list of things that he could do as President if Congress didn't act, which amounted to "do my job. do my job. tell the states to do their jobs. tell my AFT chief to do his job. tell the FBI to do their job. do more of my job." In theory, the laws Congress has already passed should be working. In reality, the number of criminal gun prosecutions has plummeted because everybody in the executive branch is off doing something else, like harassing Tea Party members or bugging reporters. If they won't do the jobs that Congress asked them to do, no amount of legislation will accomplish a darn thing.

There are thousands of children killed every year at the hands of adults. It is VERY unfortunate and there's little we can do to stop it. Often the warning signs are not there until the crime is ultimately committed.

So yes, there are more homicides committed by other means. But it's not about the overall quantity of deaths that the ban concerns. It's about the number of deaths in a single incident. Most homicides involve people who know each other. But when a death is caused at random, no "personal cause" at hand, it angers people the most. These assault weapons make it very easy to just kill a bunch of people all at once. It empowers the killer to murder many at will. THIS is what the ban is all about. Because if we don't do anything to stop it, the fear (and right so), is that more people will seek to do the same thing. Troubled, desperate people who see this as an effective means to vent their anger.

Click to expand...

They were second graders. Give a man a hammer and he can kill them until he gets tired, and without raising the alarm that the sound of a gunshot would cause. The largest school massacre in US history didn't even involve a single shooting victim. It was all done with explosives planted by a school employee over months.

Banning the sale of assault rifles won't stop such people, because they plan, and they improvise. Europe has school massacres too, as does Russia where civilian rifles are hardly even allowed (my town has more than all of Russia combined).

In response to the tragedy, Newtown voted down even the idea of providing an armed guard. If a schizophrenic nutcase wanders in and breaks the glass to grab an axe, they're still screwed.

We can make it more difficult for a schizophrenic nut hellbent on slaughtering innocent people to do so and in great numbers. Sure, some unhinged, dangerous person can grab an axe and hack a number of people to death before he's killed, restrained and arrested or takes his own life, but what are the chances that a guy wielding an axe can cut down 26 human beings in a matter of just a couple of minutes? Even the strongest, brawniest and fastest Oregon lumberjacks in the best of shape can't hack 26 people to death in just a couple of minutes.

Of course a nut will use anything at his disposal. But why not take legal, constitutionally permissible steps to make it a lot harder for him to use the deadliest and fastest weapon that can wound or kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time? 26 Americans don't die in a matter of just a few brief minutes because of sharpened pencils, baseball bats or an axe.

^ Note: We all don't live in the parts of the country where the police are three minutes away. People who live in the boonies realize that it will be half an hour, at best, before anyone arrives, and then another half hour before they figure out what approach to take.

ETA: And also, a pump action shotgun would've done just as much damage, if not more. Heck, based on old US Army tests, killing 26 people with an 1819 Hall flintlock would've taken only 8 minutes 14 seconds, assuming that the assailant didn't just start bashing in skulls with the butt of his rifle.

The point being what? You're going to ban axes, flintlocks, and baseball bats, or that you're going to ban any weapon that school officials might have handy? The only people who are going to be obeying your laws are the responders and people already in place, or passersby. Such people have quickly and efficiently stopped many school shootings, often before it rose to the level of a "shooting", much less a massacre.

^ Note: We all don't live in the parts of the country where the police are three minutes away. People who live in the boonies realize that it will be half an hour, at best, before anyone arrives, and then another half hour before they figure out what approach to take.

ETA: And also, a pump action shotgun would've done just as much damage, if not more. Heck, based on old US Army tests, killing 26 people with an 1819 Hall flintlock would've taken only 8 minutes 14 seconds, assuming that the assailant didn't just start bashing in skulls with the butt of his rifle.

Click to expand...

And people living in rural parts of countries like the UK, Australia etc.. might live in parts of their country where the police might be 30 mins away as well.

And what harm would there be in a background check? esp. as most Americans support backgrounds.

And of course just because a member of the electorae votes a certain way doesn't mean they support all the policies of the party/person they voted for.

Click to expand...

Again, we already have background checks. They are usually quite thorough, to the point where tens of thousands of people have to go through extra scrutiny just because their names just happen to match other people, even though their drivers license and Social Security numbers are different.

Click to expand...

Aren't their some loopholes in the background check regulations that do exist?

During a private sale is any background check performed?
At Gun Shows are background checks performed?
Are background checks the same in every State?

A grenade would do much more damage. Lob it into the room, close the door and run. But are grenades legal to buy? NO.

Yes, one could come up with their own improvised explosives, but they are inherently dangerous to handle and risk going off prematurely. The movie theater killer defaulted to assault weapons because they are convenient. His explosives were all rigged up and waiting for police at his home.

But this is besides the point. The killer wants to see his victims die. He wants to aim his weapon, pull the trigger, and feel the satisfaction of killing someone. Lobbing a bomb and running away does not deliver the raw feeling of the moment they crave.

The TROUBLE is our society's indulgence in these assault weapons, making it a "past time" to load up and unload on multiple targets in seconds. You learn how to use one then train your kids how to use them too... never mind that one of them may be mentally unstable. Shooting for sport is fine for single action. But for weapons that can kill dozens in seconds? I'm sorry, there's no good reason for it.

^ Note: We all don't live in the parts of the country where the police are three minutes away. People who live in the boonies realize that it will be half an hour, at best, before anyone arrives, and then another half hour before they figure out what approach to take.

Click to expand...

And nothing that has been put up for a vote would prevent you from defending yourself in those situations. Unless that is you couldn't pass a background check.

ETA: And also, a pump action shotgun would've done just as much damage, if not more. Heck, based on old US Army tests, killing 26 people with an 1819 Hall flintlock would've taken only 8 minutes 14 seconds, assuming that the assailant didn't just start bashing in skulls with the butt of his rifle.

Click to expand...

One can run away from a person reloading a single shot muzzle loader with relative ease. So don't go trying to equate such archaic weapons with modern ones.

The point being what? You're going to ban axes, flintlocks, and baseball bats, or that you're going to ban any weapon that school officials might have handy? The only people who are going to be obeying your laws are the responders and people already in place, or passersby. Such people have quickly and efficiently stopped many school shootings, often before it rose to the level of a "shooting", much less a massacre.

Click to expand...

Nobody is banning anything. They couldn't even get background checks passed.